Linda Goin’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I am FOR conserving energy. This is the only energy method that can be used without impact on future generations. Mining more uranium is not conservation. Additionally, if I could be proud of what mining companies and nuclear energy advocates have done and said in the past, I may even be on the fence. But, when I read the comments that you all have written, you come up with the same, generic arguments from the 1950s and 1960s. It's nothing new, nothing that would convince me that uranium mining and nuclear power is any safer or better than it is, even as it is being conducted today. Finally, I know how irresponsible mining companies can be - all mining companies. I, at least, have history on my side as well as experience living near uranium mining. That history, and the impact of that history in my life, has created my cynicism and my activism against uranium mining AND milling.

  Southsideminer - you did not take your time with my comments. I never said I was an advocate for in situ mining. Read again. I'm glad to hear that you have your doubts about this type of mining.

  Thanks to all of you for your insights. I am grateful for that.

   

  On Virginia OKs uranium mining study posted 5 months, 1 week ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Mr. Dillon, if you want to put all your eggs in one basket, that's your issue. Frankly, I'd rather see some economic diversity for Southside. Uranium mining doesn't allow for that possibility. In fact, in most uranium mining areas, the towns and cities around uranium mining lose a great deal of potential value. Uranium mines turn real estate into slums. Let's talk Chatham turning into a ghost town like Uravan, or a water-issue town like Norwood. I've lived there, so I know from where I speak.

  As far as the folks in Richmond - they are concerned about their drinking water. As far as the folks in KY, they're concerned about taking your yellowcake across the mountains and into western KY for enrichment. Your project affects more people than you're willing to admit, which seems to point to some territorial issues and some pride in ownership. This is a statewide issue, not specific to Coles Hill.

  If you read my comments, you would know I'm not against the study. I, too, am a Southside Virginia native, but it turns my stomach to think of an open pit mine in southern Virginia. If I were a rich woman, I would introduce another industry to divert attention. Instead, I'll do what I can to find another economic solution other than uranium mining. How's that for a deal? Are you game to join in?

  On Virginia OKs uranium mining study posted 5 months, 1 week ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Rod, I really don't understand where you're coming from, seriously. I do appreciate your willingness to talk, as you have provided a format for me to give readers links and information about uranium mining. But, unless you come up with more outrageous statements, I feel the only reason I need to respond to you at this point is to set the record straight.

  I did not say that uranium mining was the cause of radon. Anyone who has researched uranium knows that traces of uranium are found everywhere, as it is part of the earth we inhabit. Exposure to radon is especially problematic for people who live in tightly-sealed homes with basements. Radon has been proven to cause lung cancer - it's unfortunate that many homes have been built over naturally-occuring uranium veins close to the earth's surface, as those homes are more exposed than others to radon gases.

  But, some people lived in homes that were built over AND with radioactive materials, such as the ones in Grand Junction, CO - http://www.junctiondailyblog.com/index.php?article=521 - this was a problem that could occur again. (Grand Junction is located north from some of the most historicallyactive U.S. uranium and vanadium mines in the Four Corners region).

  The problem with uranium mining and milling, Rod, is that it lifts that uranium out of the ground and exposes it to more people. Scientist Dr. Gordon Edwards wrote in a December 2007 that, "When radon gas is released from a uranium mine, it deposits solid radioactive fallout – including polonium-210 – on the ground for hundreds of miles downwind of the mine site." http://pacificfreepress.com/content/view/2064/81/

  Additionally, other contaminants are brought to the surface during the mining process and left in the waste ponds during the milling process. In the Uravan site, EPA - during the Superfund cleanup - discovered contaminants including radioactive products such as raffinates, raffinate crystals and mill tailings containing uranium and radium. Other chemicals in the tailings and ground water were heavy metals, such as lead, arsenic, cadmium and vanadium. http://www.epa.gov/Region8/superfund/co/uravan/

  Uravan is not an isolated incident, and as I mentioned before, cleanup on abandoned mine sites has - for all intents and purposes - just begun in many toxic areas. Uranium mining has left behind a legacy that is disgusting, deadly and irresponsible. And yet you propose doing more of the same on pristine land that need not be mined for any specific reason other than money.

  For those who are interested in more information on uranium mining and the constant degradation that uranium companies put residents through, please follow and read more at the links below. I hope you know that I am not an alarmist. In fact, I truly wish nuclear power could work, as it would create jobs. But, the risks are too high for this process to continue, and too damaging for future generations. While I've been called a NIMBY by some, I wouldn't wish uranium mining in anyone's back yard.

   

  U.S. Nuclear Accidents: http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

  Uranium mining and milling wastes - an introduction: http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.html

  CARD (Coloradans against Resource Destruction): http://www.nunnglow.com/uranium-mining/open-pit-mining.html (this link leads to information on open-pit mining. Check out the entire site - these folks have been on point constantly to keep the uranium mining company in their county on the straight and narrow - keeping track of uranium mining companies - and people like Rod - remains a full-time job for many volunteers).

  Finally, the Navajo. As with any profession that involves extraction, the poorer members of society often are enlisted with promises and lies to do the dirty work. The uranium miining that occured on the Navajo nation is a complete disgrace. You can learn more here: http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/nativelands/navajo/

  On Virginia OKs uranium mining study posted 5 months, 1 week ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Rod - thanks for that information on the African mine. I find it interesting that the company that owns 69% of the Rossing mining interest is a Canadian company, Rio Tinto Alcan (as Santoy also is a Candian company, as are many companies mining uranium in the U.S. - that's really keeping the money in the country, eh?). I also discovered the Rössing mine (and the associated uranium mill tailings pile) is the by far largest single uranium mining-related operation in the world. In my mind, it then becomes the single largest liability in the world as well (see more issues re: Rössing at http://www.wise-uranium.org/umoproe.html).

   

  The cost to the individual taxpayer is something that is not disclosed fully . Taxpayers are paying for the cleanup on mines that date back to the mid-twentieth century in America. These reparations are interesting, Rod, as nothing can be built on former uranium mining and/or milling sites. In fact, the EPA and DOE are creating museums at Rocky Flats and Uravan so people in the future will not forget that uranium waste is stored underground. This makes those properties into perpetual radioactive parks - similar to what VUI has planned for their property once mining has been complete (according to Patrick Wales, the geologist for VUI). Sounds pretty, but you really don't want to camp there.

  All I have is history to go on, Rod, and in all the years of uranium mining, milling and enrichment, only one plant was ordered to clean up an active site (in April 2009 - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/22/state/n134606D87.DTL&type=politics). And, it wasn't until this past year when the EPA got serious with operating mines about cleaning up their water and only in one region (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6427a6b7538955c585257359003f0230/d72d23794801d6a1852574fd008186ea!OpenDocument). It wasn't until this past year that the EPA finally got around to thinking about cleaning up Navajo land, forty years after the last active mine (http://intercontinentalcry.org/us-moves-to-clean-up-uranium-on-navajo-land/). This is your tax dollars at work - cleaning up the past. And, it's not ancient history. These reparations are ongoing, perpetual history. (for those who are curious - type "epa uranium cleanup" in a search engine and grab a cup of coffee - this search can be a real learning experience).

  These costs must be added to the bottom line of what nuclear energy costs the consumer. Additionally, the medical costs may rise, as more effort is being made to track illnesses of workers after they leave uranium mining. For you to say that uranium miners in the past were negligent is brutal - they were told that uranium mining was safe - or, in the case of the Navajo - were told nothing at all. They had no clue that they needed to watch for cancers that might take five to ten years to become life-threatening. There were no regulations in place to limit the exposure time for miners as there is now. Whether those regulations are being followed is now up to the mining company AND the miner, who - hopefully - is aware of the possible results of being over-exposed to radon gases and uranium dust.

  Kids at Uravan were sliding down uranium tailings to the waste ponds fifty years ago - they had no clue that they were living with toxic materials. Years later, many of those residents have died, so they cannot bear witness to the toxicity of the chemicals they worked with. They have died from various cancers. But, many of them smoked cigarettes, so the government feels that they cannot tell if the Uravan residents died from toxic waste or from smoking (including those who received second-hand smoke vs. hands-on exposure to radioactive materials).

  The proposed miners from Pittsylvania County (which, by the way, will be totally inexperienced, IF they are hired), will not need to descend into a mine, fortunately, as you mention. This uranium mine is slated for open pit. While underground mines are more dangerous than open pit mines for miners (simply because of possible seismic action and enclosed spaces with radon and dust), open pit mines and their accompanying waste ponds endanger entire regions and their populations.

  On another topic - once again you are divorcing uranium mining from nuclear power when you state, "there is an available, lower cost alternative that produces NO atmospheric waste products." Uranium mining produces radon gases, the dust is known to cause cancer, and radiation is rampant on those abandoned mines that companies leave behind when the price of uranium slid downhill. And, as I stated, no one ever counts the cost of medical problems (the ones that RECA does acknowledge and pay for), the cost of operation of a mining and milling process, the cost of the loss of land for perpetuity and the cost of cleanup. It all adds up to become one of the most expensive forms of energy available - very close to coal, but it exceeds coal in that some of the true costs have been discounted do to lack of information. This is not a well documented industry.

  "Once again - I will agree with you that uranium mining would not currently be necessary if the developers of breeder and high conversion rate reactors had been allowed to continue their work in the 1970s-2000s. We would be well on our way to a closed fuel cycle with reuse of all of the material that is now considered to be "depleted uranium" or "spent nuclear fuel".

  I agree with you on that one, Rod - but it seems that the industry lacks altruistic adventurers or visionaries. Otherwise, we'd be there anyway if nuclear power truly was the panacea for all energy-related ills. Uranium is not the Greek goddess of healing (Panakeia); the Navajo have a name for it - Leetso - the "yellow monster," or the evil that prevents a successful life.

  On Virginia OKs uranium mining study posted 5 months, 1 week ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I have to butt in here, Rod, and thank you for the information re: Florida. Thank you, Smidgen, for your comments as well.

  Rod, you stated, "There have not been any cases anywhere in the world where a person has been injured due to exposure to used nuclear fuel."

  For those who are following this conversation, please read Montrose, Colorado's Daily Press special edition on uranium mining and health (http://www.montrosepress.com/special_sections/ - top left of all special sections). And please note that Rod states, "used nuclear fuel," not uranium from mining nor radiation from failed reactors or exposure to nuclear reactors that may cause thyroid problems (http://www.rt-image.com/blog/BehindTheZine/index.cfm/2009/6/9/Remember-Erin-Brockovich).

  My focus in addressing this article has been and will remain on uranium mining; although, it is important to note that you, Rod, keep comparing nuclear power (not uranium mining) to the entire coal industry. Coal mining is inextricably linked to the power generated by coal, just as uranium mining is connected to the power generated by uranium - nuclear power. Mining cannot be divorced from coal, nor can it be divorced from nuclear energy.

  When people suffer from the effects of uranium mining and they don't have the necessary documents or record-keeping that follows that person after working in a mine, when they get sick a few years later, many government entities and individuals like you, Rod, want to blow off the sickness as something that occurred from another source. Even the guy who fell into a vat of yellowcake and who has problems consistent with toxic exposure is denied compensation - surely he must have received this toxicity elsewhere, right?

  This is the problem for all miners - lack of documentation on health problems. But, when entities such as VUI dangle money and jobs for over 500 people (and we have yet to find an open pit mine outside Uravan that employed 500 people - perhaps you could help us with that, too, Rod), the people - who have never mined a day in their lives look to people like you, Rod, to help validate their hopes and to mitigate any risk they might learn about.

  While you might see me as a radical against nuclear energy (which I have stated before that I am not), I wonder how you can sleep at night. But, then I think that, perhaps, you are in complete denial about the problems that exist in this industry.

  On Virginia OKs uranium mining study posted 5 months, 1 week ago 29 Responses